>> LS topologies can have a very large number of adjacencies as well, >> typically with multiple spines, so for a new spine, all of the of the >> links may be unnecessary. > > ok, we talked bout the balance before - adding one link at a time to the FT > may result in slow recovery, while adding all link is claimed to be > dangerous. What is the right number? I feel that the increment value can be > something that the implementation can choose or even make configurable, so > the user can decide based on the particular topology and scale. We are not > going to find the magic value I'm afraid.
I agree that optimal is probably unknowable. The question then is what do we say in the document? How about something about rate limiting? >> Let’s set the algorithmic parts aside. Do you have an objection to >> supporting them in the signaling? > > will get complicated, especially for OSPF/OSPFv3. I have great confidence in you. ;-) > Also temporary flooding operation on LAN is tricky and sub-optimal. I don't > really believe it's worth the complexity. Ok, I’m not following this. It seems like one system would request flooding and the other nodes would comply. Where’s this tricky? Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
